Appeal 2007-1340
Application 09/996,125
See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (explaining that patents are "relevant for all they contain").
We agree with the Examiner that "selecting a hyperlink in Acharya
involved rolling a cursor over the address to digitally point to the address."
(Answer 4.) Further, Acharya teaches the skeleton structure of a Web page.
(FF 7-8.) Under a reasonable interpretation of claim 1, a user selects a
portion of a Web page by selecting a hyperlink to a document.
Again, Acharya does not specifically teach that the user-selected
portion of a Web page is a portion of a cached Web page. (FF 11.) In
addition, although Gong teaches allowing the user to digitally point to an
entire cached document (FF 15), it does not teach allowing the user to
digitally point to a portion of a cached document (FF 19). Nevertheless, as
discussed above, we conclude that the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art are not sufficient to render claim 1 nonobvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Appellants next argue that the references do not disclose only loading
the designated portions of the document, where the document is a cached
document, as claimed. (Reply Br. 4.) Instead, Appellants argue that the
references disclose "completely loading the selected version of the file."
(Reply Br. 4.) We disagree.
The Examiner found that Acharya discloses only loading the
designated portion of a document. (Answer 3, 6.) While it is true that
Acharya teaches completely loading the selected version of the file (FF 6-9),
that file is part of the "skeleton" of a Web page containing multiple files (FF
7-8). Thus, under a reasonable interpretation of claim 1, Acharya teaches
loading a designated portion of a Web page.
31
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013